Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author: M. Elizabeth Hammond x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Phillip G. Febbo, Marc Ladanyi, Kenneth D. Aldape, Angelo M. De Marzo, M. Elizabeth Hammond, Daniel F. Hayes, A. John Iafrate, R. Kate Kelley, Guido Marcucci, Shuji Ogino, William Pao, Dennis C. Sgroi and Marian L. Birkeland

The molecular analysis of biomarkers in oncology is rapidly advancing, but the incorporation of new molecular tests into clinical practice will require a greater understanding of the genetic changes that drive malignancy, the assays used to measure the resulting phenotypes and genotypes, and the regulatory processes that new molecular biomarkers must face to be accepted for clinical use. To address these issues and provide an overview of current molecular testing in 6 major malignancies, including glioma, breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and acute myelogenous leukemia, an NCCN Task Force was convened on the topic of evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. The output of this meeting, contained within this report, describes the ways biomarkers have been developed and used; defines common terminology, including prognostic, predictive, and companion diagnostic markers, and analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility; and proposes the use of a combination level of evidence score to aid in the evaluation of novel biomarker tests as they arise. The current state of regulatory oversight and anticipated changes in the regulation of molecular testing are also addressed.

Full access

D. Craig Allred, Robert W. Carlson, Donald A. Berry, Harold J. Burstein, Stephen B. Edge, Lori J. Goldstein, Allen Gown, M. Elizabeth Hammond, James Dirk Iglehart, Susan Moench, Lori J. Pierce, Peter Ravdin, Stuart J. Schnitt and Antonio C. Wolff

The NCCN Task Force on Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry was convened to critically evaluate the extent to which the presence of the estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) biomarkers in breast cancer serve as prognostic and predictive factors in the adjuvant and metastatic settings, and the ability of immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of ER and PgR to provide an accurate assessment of the expression of these biomarkers in breast cancer tumor tissue. The task force is a multidisciplinary panel of 13 experts in breast cancer who are affiliated with NCCN member institutions and represent the disciplines of pathology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, and biostatistics. The main overall conclusions of the task force are ER is a strong predictor of response to endocrine therapy; ER status of all samples of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) should be evaluated by IHC; IHC measurements of PgR, although not as important clinically as ER, can provide useful information and should also be performed on all samples of invasive breast cancer or DCIS; IHC is the main testing strategy for evaluating ER and PgR in breast cancer and priority should be given to improve the quality of IHC testing methodologies; all laboratories performing IHC assays of ER and PgR should undertake formal validation studies to show both technical and clinical validation of the assay in use; and all laboratories performing IHC assays of hormone receptors in breast cancer should follow additional quality control and assurance measures as outlined in the upcoming guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists.

Full access

Robert W. Carlson, Susan J. Moench, M. Elizabeth H. Hammond, Edith A. Perez, Harold J. Burstein, D. Craig Allred, Charles L. Vogel, Lori J. Goldstein, George Somlo, William J. Gradishar, Clifford A. Hudis, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Azadeh Stark, Antonio C. Wolff, Michael F. Press, Eric P. Winer, Soonmyung Paik, Britt-Marie Ljung and for the NCCN HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer Task Force

The NCCN HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer Task Force was convened to critically evaluate the ability of the level of HER2 expression or gene amplification in breast cancer tumors to serve as a prognostic and a predictive factor in the metastatic and adjuvant settings, to assess the reliability of the methods of measuring HER2 expression or gene amplification in the laboratory, and to make recommendations regarding the interpretation of test results. The Task Force is a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts in breast cancer representing the disciplines of medical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, epidemiology, and patient advocacy. Invited members included members of the NCCN Breast Cancer Panel and other needed experts selected solely by the NCCN. During a 2-day meeting, individual task force members provided didactic presentations critically evaluating important aspects of HER2 biology and epidemiology: HER2 as a prognostic and predictive factor; results from clinical trials in which trastuzumab was used as a targeted therapy against HER2 in the adjuvant and metastatic settings; the available testing methodologies for HER2, including sensitivity, specificity, and ability to provide prognostic and predictive information; and the principles on which HER2 testing should be based. Each task force member was charged with identifying evidence relevant to their specific expertise and presentation. Following the presentations, an evidence-based consensus approach was used to formulate recommendations relating to the pathologic and clinical application of the evidence to breast cancer patient evaluation and care. In areas of controversy, this process extended beyond the meeting to achieve consensus. The Task Force concluded that accurate assignment of the HER2 status of invasive breast cancer is essential to clinical decision making in the treatment of breast cancer in both adjuvant and metastatic settings. Formal validation and concordance testing should be performed and reported by laboratories performing HER2 testing for clinical purposes. If appropriate quality control/ assurance procedures are in place, either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods may be used. A tumor with an IHC score of 0 or1+, an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of less than 1.8, or an average number of HER2 gene copies/cell of 4 or less as determined by FISH is considered to be HER2 negative. A tumor with an IHC score of 3+, an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of greater than 2.2 by FISH, or an average number of HER2 gene copies/cell of 6 or greater is considered HER2 positive. A tumor with an IHC score of 2+ should be further tested using FISH, with HER2 status determined by the FISH result. Tumor samples with an average HER2 gene/chromosome ratio of 1.8 to 2.2 or average number of HER2 gene copies/cell in the range of greater than 4 to less than 6 are considered to be borderline, and strategies to assign the HER2 status of such samples are proposed. (JNCCN 2006;4(Suppl 3):S1–S22)

Full access

Robert A. Swarm, Judith A. Paice, Doralina L. Anghelescu, Madhuri Are, Justine Yang Bruce, Sorin Buga, Marcin Chwistek, Charles Cleeland, David Craig, Ellin Gafford, Heather Greenlee, Eric Hansen, Arif H. Kamal, Mihir M. Kamdar, Susan LeGrand, Sean Mackey, M. Rachel McDowell, Natalie Moryl, Lisle M. Nabell, Suzanne Nesbit, BCPS, Nina O’Connor, Michael W. Rabow, Elizabeth Rickerson, Rebecca Shatsky, Jill Sindt, Susan G. Urba, Jeanie M. Youngwerth, Lydia J. Hammond and Lisa A. Gurski

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Robert J. Motzer, Eric Jonasch, M. Dror Michaelson, Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal, John L. Gore, Saby George, Ajjai Alva, Naomi Haas, Michael R. Harrison, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Jeffrey Sosman, Neeraj Agarwal, Sam Bhayani, Toni K. Choueiri, Brian A. Costello, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Thomas H. Gallagher, Steven L. Hancock, Christos Kyriakopoulos, Chad LaGrange, Elaine T. Lam, Clayton Lau, Bryan Lewis, Brandon Manley, Brittany McCreery, Andrew McDonald, Amir Mortazavi, Phillip M. Pierorazio, Lee Ponsky, Bruce G. Redman, Bradley Somer, Geoffrey Wile, Mary A. Dwyer, CGC, Lydia J. Hammond and Griselda Zuccarino-Catania

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.